Re: Pregnant Radiation Workers

[bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Bob Flood)]

>Our Adminstration has asked us to answer the difficult question "Are we doing 
>*enough*

There are conflicting pressures that will drive any radiation protection
system in its efforts regarding a pregnant worker. First, the regulations
clearly require an employer to control the fetal dose to less than 500 mrem
for the gestation period **if** the worker declares her pregnancy in writing
to the employer. This means that the lower 500 mrem limit is available to
the worker if **she** chooses. The employer has no choice. The employer
cannot impose the limit on an obviously pregnant worker who refuses to make
the written declaration, and cannot refuse the lower limit if the worker
declares.

Second, the Johnson Controls decision states clearly that actions taken to
protect the fetus cannot abridge the rights of the worker. This means that
an employer can remove a declared prgenant worker from a specific activity
or location only if that removal cannot have an adverse effect on the
worker's employment. This can become a serious problem for persons vying for
promotions that may be based on length of service or experience in
particular areas, or for persons in a training position where the next pay
raise or job grade increase is based on time on the job. What happens if you
remove a woman from a group of trainees for 7-12 months? Should she receive
the next pay increase along with the other trainees who remained on the job?
Is she entitled to the same status in terms of credit for experience? Can
she be denied the pay increase? Her employment rights cannot be abridged
because she declared her pregnancy. It is a difficult situation at the very
least. Fairness to coworkers also becomes an issue.

Johnson Controls also made it clear that even if the employer meets all
regulations and maintains the worker's rights, the employer can be held
liable in radiation injury claims regarding the fetus. Apparently, the
worker who declares cannot sue, but the child can at a later time, or the
child's father on behalf of the child. Thus, an employer must meet the
regulations, perhaps permit the worker to continue potentially hazardous
work (maintaining her employment rights), and be held liable for any injury
expressed in the child that can be attributed to the occupational hazard.
Some companies have taken the approach that, if the worker won't accept a
job modification to remove the hazard, such a change will be imposed, with
an acknowledged risk of trouble as a result. The philosophy is: "we may be
sued in either case, so which do you want to be sued for - interfering with
Mom's career during her pregnancy out of concern for her unborn child, or
causing injury to her poor helpless baby?"

At SLAC, we don't have internal exposure opportunities of any consequence,
much to my relief. We encourage declared workers to accept job assignments
outside the radiologically controlled areas, and if that's the case, her
external dosimetry will consist of "long term" measurments from declaration
to completion of the gestation (with an exchange on Jan 1 if it occurs in
that period). If the worker will not accept such an assignment, dose
measurements are increase to monthly in addition to the normal occupational
monitoring for the worker. Actions could be taken if the monthly
measurements showed dose to be concerned about. This has not happened here.

Internal exposure changes the game, however. There is considerable
uncertainty in the dose models for the fetus, which bring a huge uncertainty
in whether an employer can really demonstrate compliance with the limits,
whether an employer's dose calculations can be second-guessed to death by
regulators and lawyers if there is a claim, etc. Unfortunately, courts have
been willing to accept "they didn't force me to do the right thing" as a
reasonable arguement.

Are the waters sufficiently muddy?

Bob Flood
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
(415) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu